--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" <do.rflex@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <reavismarek@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Ruth, excellent response and post. I disagree only with your 2d > > > Amend. analysis. Gun ownership by the individual is fundamental to > > > this country; in the last few years many constitutional experts have > > > examined the 2d Amend. and construed it to guarantee rights to the > > > individual, rather than the government militia. In my read that's > > > exactly what it states. > > > > > > "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free > > > State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be > > > infringed." > > > > > > 'Government' in the Constitution (and particularly in the > > > Declaration of Independence) is to be feared for its inevitable > > > inclination to Tyranny, and necessarily then, harnessed and fettered > > > by the laws of the new republic. It was assumed that eventually any > > > government will go bad and the ability to resist your own government > > > (gone bad) by force of arms was understood to be one of the last > > > resorts to Tyranny. > > > > > > There's absolutely *ZERO* possibility of any 'militia' being capable > > of successfully resisting the weaponry and manpower of the US military. > >++ the military is sworn to uphold the constitution and, obviously, > the government hasn't been.
Then why do you need a 'militia' if you trust the US Military to "uphold the constitution?" And how do you expect a 'militia' to stand up the the US Military if it doesn't? > Also, think Blackhawk down or Afgans knocking off choppers with > small arms. > In the forties, Japan observed that it would a disaster to attack > the US mainland where most of the citizens were armed- that being one > of the reasons for being armed in the first place. Get realistic. Without the US Military, the US would have been no match for the Japanese military. > > > The fact that it sits uneasily with many modern sensibilities > > > doesn't mean it doesn't say what it says. Though that's just the > > > way I see, and there is a lot of disagreement continuing. I think > > > the Supremes have a 2d Amend. case in this term; I haven't been > > > following it. > > > > > > Marek > >++ the DC gun ban was struck down by a local court and is now on > appeal however, seeing the serious implications of a ruling either > way, they might just make a ruling only to apply in DC.
